Important points:
The motive is concerned, it is trite that when there are eyewitnesses to the incident, motive is not a relevant factor-Not involved in any such confrontation and therefore, the motive was only an imaginative one, and is not proved.

JUDGMENT :

Shaffique, J.

This appeal is filed by the victim challenging the judgment dated 29/1/2014 in SC No.280/2008 of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode by which the accused were acquitted for the offence under Sections 341, 326 and 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and they were acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-

While PW2 (the injured) and his friends PW1, PW3 and a few others were returning after a housewarming function in a jeep bearing Regn.No.KL-11D-81, when they reached near Narikunni bus stand, all the accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the above jeep, A1 approached PW2, who was driving the jeep and told him that he want to say something. PW2 alighted from the jeep went with A1, and when they reached in front of S.K.Associates, A1 took a knife from his waist and with an intention to kill PW2, he stabbed him with his knife causing serious injuries. The accused were charged with offence under Sections 341, 326 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

3. The charge was originally laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Thamarasserry, which was committed to the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The Sessions Judge made over the case initially to the IIIrd Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode, and later to the Vth Additional Sessions Court.

4. To prove the case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW14, marked Exts.P1 to P22 documents and identified MO1 to MO3 material objects. Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on the defence side. During examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') the appellants denied all evidence tendered against them and pleaded innocence.

5. On a scanning of the evidence, it could be seen that PW2 is the injured and PW1 and PW3 are the occurrence witnesses. PW4 and PW5 were examined to prove Ext.P2 scene mahazar, as attestors. PW6 had been examined to prove seizure of MO1 and MO2 as per Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. PW7 is an attestor to Ext.P4 seizure mahazar by which the knife, MO3 had been recovered. PW8 has been examined to prove the fact that the accused entertained an ill-will against PW2.

6. PW9 has issued Ext.P5 wound certificate of PW2. Ext.P5 would show that PW2 suffered the following injuries:-(1) penetrating wound 7 x 2 cm near para spinal area near renal angle. Laparotomy was conducted and it was noticed that para spinal muscles were cut. There was transection of right kidney along with renal artery and vein. There was transection of right lobe of liver and hemoperitoneum.

7. PW10 is the Village Officer who prepared Ext.P6 site plan. Ext.P7 chemical analysis report was proved through PW11, the Joint Chemical Examiner. Ext.P1 is the FIS given by PW1, which was recorded by PW12. Case was registered by PW13, the Sub Inspector of Police and Ext.P8 is the FIR. PW14 is the investigating officer in the case.

8. This is a case in which PW2 suffered very serious injury on the basis of which a crime came to be registered for offences u/s 341, 326 and 307 r/w S.34 of I.P.C. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below acquitted the accused for the following reasons:-

(i) Though the police got information regarding a cognizable offence at 2.00 hrs on 27/5/2007, FIR was recorded only at 12.30 hours. Delay in registering FIR has become fatal to the prosecution.

(ii) PW2 did not mention the name of accused to the Doctor who examined him, though he knew the 1st accused.

(iii) PW1 and PW3 are interested witnesses and their evidence is full of inconsistencies and hence their evidence is doubtful.

(iv) According to PWs 1 to 3, the place of occurrence is just in front of S.K. Hardwares. But in scene mahazar and Ext.P6 scene plan, no mention is made about S.K. Hardwares. Therefore, the prosecution has shifted the place of occurrence. It is found that the scene mahazar and site plan shows that the place of incident is in front of S.K. Associates. PW1 to 3 had deposed that the p